Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2016, 178, 436–481. With 14 figures Taxonomic classification of the reef coral family Lobophylliidae (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Scleractinia) DANWEI HUANG1*, ROBERTO ARRIGONI2,3*, FRANCESCA BENZONI3, HIRONOBU FUKAMI4, NANCY KNOWLTON5, NATHAN D. SMITH6, JAROSŁAW STOLARSKI7, LOKE MING CHOU1 and ANN F. BUDD8 1Department of Biological Sciences and Tropical Marine Science Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore 2Red Sea Research Center, Division of Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia 3Department of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 2, 20126 Milan, Italy 4Department of Marine Biology and Environmental Science, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki 889- 2192, Japan 5Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA 6The Dinosaur Institute, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA 7Institute of Paleobiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda 51/55, PL-00-818, Warsaw, Poland 8Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA Received 14 July 2015; revised 19 December 2015; accepted for publication 31 December 2015 Lobophylliidae is a family-level clade of corals within the ‘robust’ lineage of Scleractinia. It comprises species traditionally classified as Indo-Pacific ‘mussids’, ‘faviids’, and ‘pectiniids’. Following detailed revisions of the closely related families Merulinidae, Mussidae, Montastraeidae, and Diploastraeidae, this monograph focuses on the taxonomy of Lobophylliidae. Specifically, we studied 44 of a total of 54 living lobophylliid species from all 11 genera based on an integrative analysis of colony, corallite, and subcorallite morphology with molecular sequence data. By examining coral skeletal features at three distinct levels – macromorphology, micromorphology, and microstructure – we built a morphological matrix comprising 46 characters. Data were analysed via maximum parsimony and transformed onto a robust molecular phylogeny inferred using two nuclear (histone H3 and internal transcribed spacers) and one mitochondrial (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I) DNA loci. The results suggest that micromorphological characters exhibit the lowest level of homoplasy within Lobophylliidae. Molecular and morphological trees show that Symphyllia, Parascolymia, and Australomussa should be considered junior synonyms of Lobophyllia, whereas Lobophyllia pachysepta needs to be transferred to Acanthastrea. Our analyses also lend strong support to recent revisions of Acanthastrea, which has been reorganized into five separate genera (Lobophyllia, Acanthastrea, Homophyllia, Sclerophyllia, and Micromussa), and to the establishment of Australophyllia. Cynarina and the monotypic Moseleya remain unchanged, and there are insufficient data to redefine Oxypora, Echinophyllia,andEchinomorpha. Finally, all lobophylliid genera are diagnosed under the phylogenetic classification system proposed here, which will facilitate the placement of extinct taxa on the scleractinian tree of life. © 2016 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2016, 178: 436–481 doi: 10.1111/zoj.12391 ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Faviina – Indo-Pacific – integrative taxonomy – marine invertebrates – morphological phylogenetics – Mussidae – systematics. *Corresponding authors. E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected] 436 © 2016 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2016, 178, 436–481 TAXONOMY OF REEF CORALS 437 1877 (= Indo-Pacific ‘Scolymia’). The phylogeneti- INTRODUCTION cally distinct Diploastrea heliopora (Lamarck, 1816) The reclassification of modern reef (i.e. zooxanthel- (clade XV; Indo-Pacific) and Montastraea cavernosa late) corals is underway, supported by various molecu- (Linnaeus, 1767) (clade XVI; Atlantic) were sepa- lar and morphological approaches (e.g. Gittenberger, rated into two families monotypic for extant taxa – Reijnen & Hoeksema, 2011; Benzoni et al., 2012a,b; Diploastraeidae Chevalier & Beauvais, 1987, and Arrigoni et al., 2014a; Kitano et al., 2014). The pre- Montastraeidae Yabe & Sugiyama, 1941, respec- sent study is the third in a series of monographs that tively. Finally, the Indo-Pacific ‘mussids’ and ‘pec- considers species traditionally placed in the suborder tiniid’ genera, Echinomorpha Veron, 2000, Faviina sensu Vaughan & Wells (1943) and Wells Echinophyllia Klunzinger, 1879, and Oxypora Sav- (1956), or Faviina + Meandriina sensu Veron (1995). ille Kent, 1871 (clades XVIII–XX sensu Fukami The series formally establishes a revised taxonomic et al., 2008), were placed in the family Lobophylli- classification that is based on new molecular results idae Dai & Horng, 2009 (= Lobophylliidae Budd (Fukami et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2011; Arrigoni et al., 2012; see also Licuanan, 2009; Fig. 1). Mor- et al., 2012, 2014b,c, 2015, 2016a), and focuses on the phological phylogenetic analyses were able to family and genus levels. It treats eight extant families recover the redefined Mussidae and Lobophylliidae – Meandrinidae Gray, 1847, Oculinidae Gray, 1847, as monophyletic groups, but not Merulinidae. Rhizangiidae d’Orbigny, 1851, Merulinidae Verrill, The second monograph by Huang et al. (2014b) for- 1865, Mussidae Ortmann, 1890, Faviidae Gregory, mally revised genera in the families Merulinidae, 1900 (including Trachyphylliidae Verrill, 1901), Montastraeidae, and Diploastraeidae by characteriz- Anthemiphylliidae Vaughan, 1907, and Pectiniidae ing their corallite and subcorallite morphologies (44 Vaughan & Wells, 1943 – mostly nested within the ‘ro- characters, 84 species), performing a morphological bust’ group and shown to be nonmonophyletic phylogenetic analysis, and comparing the results (Fukami et al., 2008; Kitahara et al., 2010; Stolarski with previously published molecular phylogenetic et al., 2011; Huang, 2012; Huang & Roy, 2013, 2015). results (Huang et al., 2011; Arrigoni et al., 2012). In A few genera conventionally classified within these particular, Pectinia de Blainville, 1825, was subdi- families have been found to belong in the ‘complex’ vided into Pectinia and Physophyllia Duncan, 1884; clade (e.g. Ctenella Matthai, 1928, and Galaxea Milne Goniastrea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1848a, was Edwards & Haime, 1857). The first monograph of this series by Budd et al. (2012) moved these ‘complex’ genera into the family Euphylliidae Alloiteau, 1952. More importantly, the authors reorganized four of the ‘robust’ families (Merulinidae, Mussidae, Faviidae, and Pectiniidae) using the molecular phylogeny of Fukami et al. (2008). Aided by detailed observations and phyloge- netic analyses of coral morphology at the corallite and subcorallite scales (38 characters) in 67 species (Budd & Stolarski, 2009, 2011), Budd et al. (2012) redefined Mussidae (clade XXI sensu Fukami et al., 2008) to incorporate Mussinae (Atlantic ‘mussids’) and Faviinae (Atlantic ‘faviids’). At the genus level, Isophyllastrea Matthai, 1928, was synonymized with Isophyllia Milne Edwards & Haime, 1851a, and one new genus Pseudodiploria Fukami, Budd & Knowl- ton, 2012, was established. Budd et al. (2012) also moved all the members of clade XVII (sensu Fukami et al., 2008), comprising the Indo-Pacific genera within Merulinidae, Favi- idae (plus Orbicella Dana, 1846, in the Atlantic), Figure 1. Comparisons amongst recent classifications of Pectiniidae, and Trachyphylliidae (sensu Vaughan genera in Lobophylliidae. Continuous lines track generic & Wells, 1943) into Merulinidae, and resurrected synonyms, whereas dotted lines indicate movements of the genera Dipsastraea de Blainville, 1830 (= Indo- species amongst genera. See Stolarski & Roniewicz (2001) Pacific ‘Favia’), Phymastrea Milne Edwards & for comparisons with Vaughan & Wells (1943), Wells Haime, 1848a (= Indo-Pacific ‘Montastraea’), Paras- (1956), Alloiteau (1952), and Chevalier & Beauvais colymia Wells, 1964, and Homophyllia Bruggemann,€ (1987). © 2016 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2016, 178, 436–481 438 D. HUANG ET AL. subdivided into Goniastrea and Coelastrea Verrill, incorporating the 12 genera listed by Budd et al. 1866 (see also Huang et al., 2014a); Dipsastraea de (2012). We also included Homophyllia hillae (Wells, Blainville, 1830, was subdivided into Dipsastraea 1955) as a separate taxon although it has recently and Favites Link, 1807, with Barabattoia Yabe & been synonymized under Homophyllia bowerbanki Sugiyama, 1941, regarded as a junior synonym; and (Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857) (Arrigoni et al., Phymastrea was synonymized with Favites, with 2016a); our study presented a fine opportunity to test some members redistributed into Astrea Lamarck, the relatedness between them. 1801, and Paramontastraea Huang & Budd in Taxonomy at the species level was based primarily Huang et al., 2014b. Phylogenetic analyses of on Veron (2000, 2002), along with new species Merulinidae, Montastraeidae, and Diploastraeidae described thereafter. We were able to locate and pho- showed that morphological and molecular trees were tograph nearly all of the name-bearing type speci- generally congruent at the genus level, with mens of genera and species within Lobophylliidae, Merulinidae finally recovered as a clade. many of which are figured here. Specimens that